![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
May. 2nd, 2007 03:08 pmI'm a swinging voter. Every single election I decide who I'm going to vote for based on a whole heap of factors. One thing that I'm certain about already, even before the election date is announced: I'm not voting for anyone Liberal, even if the party puts up perfectly loveable candidates with perfect world views.
Why? And why am I suddenly ranting about politics when I normally try to steer clear of such things on this blog?
I refuse to vote for a party that condones a statement that woman without children are unsuitable for leadership. If Howard had condemned Heffernan's comment on this matter immediately as wrong-headed I would have stuck to my usual policy and next election checked out each candidate one by one and voted or not voted as they deserved. In this case, the issue is one that is acted on secretly and seldom comes out into the open. It's a matter of what makes a person valuable to society. Women apparently have to have children (or at least be willing) to grow to their full potential; apparently men don't. Heffernan said something that I have come across far too often and that I find very worrying.
I'm not simplifying my electoral choices just because of the issue of childless women. In recent years there have been similar incidents concerning the human rights of refugees, the rights of workers, the rights of women to control over their own body, the rights of minority religions to live free from fear and other things. My tolerance has been wearing thin and I suddenly find I have none left.
What happened with all the other issues was that the Prime Minister issued bland statements that reinforced what was being said while giving the impression he and his party didn't actually support the voiced opinion. This time he said "people say funny things all the time and the question of whether they apologise for them is a matter for them". And me choosing not to vote for a party that doesn't get angry about misogyny is entirely up to me.
Why? And why am I suddenly ranting about politics when I normally try to steer clear of such things on this blog?
I refuse to vote for a party that condones a statement that woman without children are unsuitable for leadership. If Howard had condemned Heffernan's comment on this matter immediately as wrong-headed I would have stuck to my usual policy and next election checked out each candidate one by one and voted or not voted as they deserved. In this case, the issue is one that is acted on secretly and seldom comes out into the open. It's a matter of what makes a person valuable to society. Women apparently have to have children (or at least be willing) to grow to their full potential; apparently men don't. Heffernan said something that I have come across far too often and that I find very worrying.
I'm not simplifying my electoral choices just because of the issue of childless women. In recent years there have been similar incidents concerning the human rights of refugees, the rights of workers, the rights of women to control over their own body, the rights of minority religions to live free from fear and other things. My tolerance has been wearing thin and I suddenly find I have none left.
What happened with all the other issues was that the Prime Minister issued bland statements that reinforced what was being said while giving the impression he and his party didn't actually support the voiced opinion. This time he said "people say funny things all the time and the question of whether they apologise for them is a matter for them". And me choosing not to vote for a party that doesn't get angry about misogyny is entirely up to me.